Al-Ghaza¯lı¯’s Philosophical


Download 4.03 Mb.
Pdf ko'rish
bet12/55
Sana07.11.2017
Hajmi4.03 Mb.
#19584
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   55

55

  Like Avicenna, al-Ghaza¯l



ı

¯ claims 

that every human has a small portion of these faculties, not only prophets; 

prophets are only the most distinguished examples of purifi ed souls. These 

faculties become stronger if one purifi es one’s soul by cleansing it ( t.ahhara ) 

from worldly desires. The miracles that the prophets perform—which earlier 

Ash  ¶arites regarded, as we will see, as a break on God’s habit—are simply the 

causal effects of the strong infl uencing power of the prophet’s soul. 

 We should note that al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ remained somewhat uncommitted to the 



teachings presented in this letter, introducing them as “a school of thought” to 

teach the existence of a close link between the purity of a person’s heart and 

his or her level of knowledge and insight. Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯, however, understood 

that al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ was a member of this “school of thought”—a reference to none 



other than Avicenna—which teaches that purifi ed souls are able to achieve 

higher insights than those hearts that remain tarnished. 

 Ibn  al- ¶Arabı¯’s book  Protective Guards Against Strong Objections   ( al- Awa¯s.im 

min al-qawa¯s.im ) is a rich source for comments al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ made to his stu-



dents. At one point, Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ reports that al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ inclined toward the 



position of some  fala¯sifa  that rationality (  ¶

aql ) offers a path toward knowledge 

about the afterlife. In his published works, al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ exhibits no such lean-



ings, always maintaining that the revealed information about the afterlife is 

so detailed and so clear that it overrules all rational speculation and allows no 

fi gurative interpretation of the revealed text. 

56

  Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯, however, says that 



al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ leaned toward the opposite position and held it in high esteem. 



57

  


7 0   a l - gh a z a

¯ l 1


¯ ’ s   ph ilosoph ic a l   t h e olo g y

In another passage of this book, Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ reports al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s opinion 



on those who claim to see the Prophet in their dreams. 

58

  Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯’s other 



books, such as his voluminous commentary on al-Tirmidhı¯’s  h.adı¯th   collection, 

may yield more relevant information on al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s teachings, 



59

  as may some 

other works that still lie in manuscripts. In his commentary on the noble divine 

names, for instance, Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ seems to be taking issue with al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s 


rationalist teachings on that subject. Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯’s dictum that his teacher en-

tered so deep into the bellies of the  fala¯sifa  that he could not get out may be 

taken from this work or from his equally unedited  Lamp of the Novices   ( Sira¯j 

al-murı¯dı¯n ), in which Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ argues against al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s view of the best 



of all possible worlds. 

60

  



 Al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ wrote a few texts in response to Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯’s questions. One 



manuscript of the book  Breathing of the Spirit and the Shaping   ( Nafkh al-ru

¯h. 

wa-l-taswiya ) says that work is a response to Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯’s questions. 

61

  This text, 



whose abbreviated form is known as  The Short Text to Be Withheld   ( al-Mad.nu¯n 

al-s.aghı¯r ) or possibly also as  Ghazalian Answers to Questions about the Afterlife  

al-Ajwiba al-Ghaza¯liyya fı¯ l-masa¯ 7il al-ukhrawiyya ), discusses the nature of the 

human soul and the human spirit ( ru

¯h. ) and the latter’s relation to God’s act 

of shaping the body and breathing His life force into it (Q 32:9, 15:29, 38:72). 

Judging from the considerable number of manuscripts and modern prints, the 

book was and is very popular among al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s readers. Its authenticity, how-



ever, is not fully established. Another Ghazalian text connected to Abu

¯ Bakr ibn 

al- ¶Arabı¯ also deals with the dispute between  mutakallimu

¯n  and  fala¯sifa  on the 

nature of the human soul. 

62

  In a letter al-Ghaza¯l



ı

¯ addressed to Abu¯ Bakr, he 

answers three questions on various subjects, among them, whether the soul is 

a self-subsisting substance (   jawhar ) or just an accident that inheres in a body. 

The existence of this brief text was noted by Ih.sa¯n  ¶Abba¯s in 1968; 

63

  the text is 



still unedited and was not available to me. 

64

  The fi rst question Ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ asks 



is: “Is the spirit ( al-ru

¯h. ) lightened particles (. . .) or is it a spiritual substance 

jawhar ) that each body encounters in the form of rays like one encounters 

the sun (. . .)?” The second question enquires about “the difference between a 

bird[’s fl ight] and a good omen.” The third questions is: “What is the meaning 

of the Prophet’s saying: ‘The devil runs with one of you in his veins?’ ” 

65

  



 Al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ answers these questions cautiously, fi rst reminding Ibn al-



  ¶Arabı¯ and other students that they should not strive to answer each and every 

question that they fi nd raised within themselves. Second, they should not as-

sume that the results of a demonstration ( burha¯n ) could ever be false. The in-

tellect—if properly applied—does not lead to false results. Third, they should 

keep in mind that when it comes to fi gurative interpretation ( ta 7wı¯l ) of revela-

tion, it is insuffi cient to specify an interpretation that is merely probable. It is 

dangerous to judge what God might have intended in his revelation and what 

the Prophet might have intended in his sayings by assumptions and guesses. 

 The text of al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s letter appears to be at least partly identical to al-



Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s  The Universal Rule in Interpreting Revelation   ( al-Qa¯nu¯n al-kullı¯ fı¯ l- ta 7wı¯l ) , 



a short work of a dozen pages discovered in a Cairo manuscript and published 

in 1940. 

66

  There al-Ghaza¯l



ı

¯ discusses several suggested interpretations of the 



 

m os t   in f lue n t i a l   s t u de n t s   a nd   e a r l y   f ol low er s  

7 1

 h.adı¯th  about the devil running in the veins of some of the Prophet’s compan-



ions. He begins his own explanations with three recommendations, namely, 

(1) that one should not aspire to know everything, (2) that one should not as-

sume a valid demonstration could result in a falsehood, and (3) that one should 

not engage in interpretation ( ta 7wı¯l ) if one is uncertain about the meaning of 

the revealed text. 

67

  It appears that  The Universal Rule in Interpreting Revelation , 



which is mentioned in the work lists of al-Subkı¯ and al-Wa¯sit.ı¯, was generated 

from a letter al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ wrote in response to Abu¯ Bakr ibn al- ¶Arabi. 



68

  

 Despite their brief period of personal contact, Abu¯ Bakr ibn al- ¶Arabı¯ was 



probably the master student of al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s—at least when it comes to his the-



ology. Abu¯ Bakr was particularly interested in all questions dealing with the 

human soul and with epistemology. By the time he met al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯, the great 



 Da¯nishmand   (al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯) had adopted an Avicennan psychology regarding the 



human soul as a self-subsisting substance, able to continue existence after the 

body’s death. Yet in some books of the  Revival —most evidently in the  Letter 



for Jerusalem  in the Second Book—he expresses the relationship between the 

human soul and the human body in the language of the  mutakallimu¯n  as de-

pendent accidents (meaning the soul) that inhere in the atoms of the body. 

69

  



The  Letter to Jerusalem  was written only a few months before Abu¯ Bakr met 

al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯. In other writings, I tried to resolve this apparent contradiction. 



70

  

Although al-Ghaza¯l



ı

¯ personally preferred the theory of the human soul as a 

self-subsisting substance that he ascribed to the  fala¯sifa  and the Sufi s, neither 

through reason nor through revelation are humans able to decide whether this 

theory is true or the alternative explanation held by the  mutakallimu¯n .  Nei-

ther of the two competing views can be demonstrably proven, and both are 

viable explanations of the text of revelation. It was important for al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ 



that all Muslim scholars become convinced of the corporeal character of resur-

rection in the afterlife. One should fi nd a way to teach this essential element 

of the Muslim creed without needing to change the views of one’s readership 

on the nature of the soul and thus confuse their convictions. We will see that 

this strategy is a result of what I will call al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s nominalist approach to 



human knowledge. 

 As  ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ (d. 523/1130 or 527/1132–33) 

 Abu

¯ l-Fath. As ¶ad ibn Muh.ammad al-Mayhanı¯ was probably the most infl u-



ential immediate follower of al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ in the Muslim East. Whether he was 



a student of the great theologian is not entirely clear; the entries on him in 

chronicles and biographical dictionaries do not mention such a relationship. 

In fact, there is something enigmatic about his education that challenges the 

currently prevailing understanding of the educational patterns of this period. 

According to the historical reports written by religious authorities such as al-

Subkı¯ or Ibn al-Jawzı¯, As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ was a successful and highly regarded 

teacher of Islamic law; nothing would suggest that he ever taught disputed posi-

tions associated with  falsafa .  However,  al-Bayhaqı¯’s biographical dictionary of 



7 2   a l - gh a z a

¯ l 1


¯ ’ s   ph ilosoph ic a l   t h e olo g y

scholars connected to the philosophical movement features a short article on 

As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯. There he writes that As ¶ad had studied with al-Lawkarı¯, who 

was a student of one of Avicenna’s students. Al-Lawkarı¯ was the most important 

fi gure for the introduction of Avicennism in Khorasan. 

71

   As  ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ was 



the fi rst Muslim scholar with a dual intellectual pedigree: he was a reputable 

religious scholar who taught at theological madrasas, while still participating in 

the philosophical teaching tradition established by Avicenna. 

As ¶ad   al-Mayhanı¯ was born 461/1068–69 in Mayhana, a town in northern 

Khorasan that is less than 100 km northeast of T.u¯s. 

72

  He studied  fi qh  with Abu



¯ 

l-Muz.affar al-Sam ¶a¯nı¯ at the Niz.a¯miyya madrasa in Merw, 

73

  where he later be-



came a teacher. He then moved to Ghazna, where his fame grew. In 507/1113–14, 

the youthful Mah.mu¯d ibn Muh.ammad Tapar ibn Maliksha¯h, who ruled as gov-

ernor over Baghdad, invited him to teach at the local Niz.a¯miyya. Like al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯



twenty-two years earlier, As ¶ad was a Seljuq appointee and close to the caliph’s 

court. Al-Bayhaqı¯ says that everybody who witnessed him at the caliphal court 

was highly impressed. Other historians add that the caliph, the sultan, and all 

the other dignitaries held him in high esteem and mention that As ¶ad soon ac-

quired signifi cant riches. In 510/1117, As ¶ad gave his friend, the famous author 

al-Shahrasta¯nı¯ (d. 548/1153), a teaching post at the Baghdad Niz.a¯miyya. 

74

   In 


513/1119–20, both al-Shahrasta¯nı¯ and As ¶ad ceased teaching at the Niz.a¯miyya—

perhaps because their Seljuq patron temporarily lost authority over Baghdad. 

75

  

As  ¶ad taught at the Baghdad Niz.a¯miyya for a second period of six months in 



517/1123. He died either in 523/1129 or 527/1132–33 in Hamadan. 

76

  



 As  ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ composed a curriculum of studies or a textbook that was 

adopted by the Niz.a¯miyya in Baghdad and by other schools. In Baghdad, it 

remained in use many decades after his death. The work is referred to as “The 

Notes” ( al-Ta  lı¯qa ), and it is credited for its masterful treatments of the tech-

niques used in disputations ( khila¯f   ). 

77

  It seems to have followed al-Ghaza¯l



ı

¯’s 


approach and included the study of formal logics in the area of jurisprudence 

(   fi qh ). The philosopher  ¶Abd al-Lat.ı¯f al-Baghda¯dı¯ (d. 629/1231) says that his 

father studied at the Baghdad Niz.a¯miyya “the sciences of law, Sha¯fi   ¶ite  fi qh , 

and the disputations between the schools ( khila¯f  )  with the ‘Notes’ of As ¶ad al-

Mayhanı¯, who was famous during that time.” 

78

  This was in the middle of the 



sixth/twelfth century when As ¶ad was no longer alive. Twenty years later, the 

rationalist theologian Sayf al-Dı¯n al-A

¯ midı¯ (d. 631/1233) studied As ¶ad’s “Notes” 

diligently and considered himself a follower of al-Mayhanı¯. 

79

  At the end of the 



century, the H

. anbalite jurist Ibn al-Jawzı¯ (d. 597/1201) wrote that many stu-

dents of his school use As ¶ad’s “Notes” even though it teaches primarily Sha¯fi  ¶ite 

and not H

. anbalite law. 

80

  In the fourteenth century, the conservative Ibn Kathı¯r 



(d. 774/1373) confi rms that the work was still famous despite the fact that he 

considered it of little value. 

81

  

 As  ¶ad was only slightly more than ten years younger than al-Ghaza¯l



ı

¯, so a 


proper teacher-student relationship must be ruled out. The Muslim historians 

report details of al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s life on As ¶ad’s authority. The two were thus known or 



plausibly thought to be in contact. Al-Subkı¯ quotes a very appreciative comment of 

As ¶ad that aims to defend al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ against the criticism of lesser-accomplished 



 

m os t   in f lue n t i a l   s t u de n t s   a nd   e a r l y   f ol low er s  

7 3

theologians: “Nobody will arrive at al-Ghaza¯l



ı

¯’s level of insights and his virtue un-

less he reaches—or at least almost reaches—intellectual perfection.” 

82

  



 The historians, however, do not report that the two ever met. Their meeting 

can only be deduced from two separate narratives about an episode in al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s 


late life. Each of the two narratives is incomplete, and at least one must be 

partly erroneous. The fi rst report is from the collection of al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s letters. 



The anonymous collector tells of a group of scholars at al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s  kha¯nqa¯h   in 



T.u¯s who asked him, “which school do you belong to?” 

83

  The story immediately 



follows al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s exchange with Sanjar, which took place soon after 501/1108. 



As already explained, al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ was asked to appear before Sanjar and defend 



himself against the accusation brought forward by H

. anafi te scholars that al-

Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ had shunned their Imam Abu¯ H



. anı¯fa in one of his earlier books. As 

Sanjar and many within the Seljuq court were H

. anafi tes, 

84

   thirty-year-old  derog-



atory comments on the H

. anafi te school’s founder could still harm al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯. 


The accusations and how al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ successfully parried them are reported 



in the collection of his letters. 

85

  Although the group of scholars that visited 



al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ and asked this question is not identifi ed, they are brought in con-



nection with “his enemies” ( muta annita¯n-i way ) from the court of Sanjar. In 

al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s answer to their question, he gives a short version of his epistemo-



logical approach to Muslim theology and ethics, mirroring his “law of fi gura-

tive interpretation” ( qa¯nu



¯n al- ta 7wı¯l ) .  He  says: 

 Regarding the subjects that are settled by reason ( ma qu



¯la¯t ) my school 

madhhab ) is that of demonstration, following what a rational argu-

ment ( dalı¯l  aqlı¯ ) mandates. Regarding the subjects that are settled by 

revelation ( shar  iyya¯t ) my school is the Qur’an and I do not follow one 

of the Imams by way of emulation ( taqlı¯d ). Neither al-Sha¯fi  ¶ı¯ nor Abu

¯ 

H



. anı¯fa may take a line of writing away from me and claim it. 

86

  



 The second narrative of this incident appears in Dawlatsha¯h Samarqandı¯’s 

(d. ca. 900/1494) history of Persian poets. We must assume that Dawlatsha¯h 

wrote after the collection of letters; in fact, it seems likely that he took most of 

his information from there. He writes: 

 The scholar As ¶ad of Mayhana, a chronicler who was at the court of 

Sultan Muh.ammad Tapar, engaged in a public disputation ( muna¯z.ara ) 

with Abu

¯ H


. a¯mid al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯. The scholars of Khorasan supported As ¶ad 



and during a session at Sultan Muh.ammad’s court he asked al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ 



the fi rst question: “Are you of the legal school of Abu

¯ H


. anı¯fa or of 

al-Sha¯fi  ¶ı¯?” 

87

  

 Al-Ghaza¯l



ı

¯ responded with the same answer that is noted in the collection of 

letters. It is striking that in Dawlatsha¯h’s report, As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ appears as 

al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s enemy. There were, however, two As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯s who were 



contemporaries. One studied Sha¯fi  ¶ite  fi qh , theology, and  falsafa  and became a 

teacher at the Niz.a¯miyya in Baghdad after al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s death. The second was 



about seven years older and was a Sufi  and  h.adı¯th  scholar who died shortly 

7 4   a l - gh a z a

¯ l 1


¯ ’ s   ph ilosoph ic a l   t h e olo g y

after al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯. 


88

  The two were apparently not related. It is thus likely that 

Dawlatsha¯h had the second more conservative As ¶ad from Mayhana in mind, 

who may have belonged to the H

. anafi te school of law. We can thus assume that 

Dawlatsha¯h constructed this encounter based on his knowledge of al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s 


letters. 

 Not so easily solved is the fact that in Dawlatsha¯h’s story, the exchange be-

tween As ¶ad and al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ happens at the court of Sultan Muh.ammad Tapar, 



rather than at the court of Sanjar. The name Muh.ammad Tapar cannot simply 

be an erroneous substitution for Sanjar, since in Dawlatsha¯h’s book, al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ 

refers to an earlier exchange with Sanjar. 



89

  There are, however, no reliable re-

ports of a confrontation between Sultan Muh.ammad Tapar and al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯. 



Sultan Muh.ammad Tapar resided in Isfahan and had left the affairs of Kho-

rasan in the hands of his brother Sanjar, who would succeed him as supreme 

sultan of the Seljuq Empire after his death in 511/1118. Regarding this piece of 

information, Dawlatsha¯h’s story is probably wrong; it may be again based on an 

erroneous reading of the collection of al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s letters. 



90

  

 What then is the grain of truth in all this? The collector of al-Ghaza¯l



ı

¯’s letters 

vaguely suggests that those who put the question to him were also hostile. That, 

however, need not be the case. The story of al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s memorable comment 



on his  madhhab —a word that may also mean his “method”—might have been 

mixed up with earlier accusations about his  fi qh  brought forward by H

. anafi te 

scholars. This confusion might have already existed when the collection of let-

ters was put together. Initially, the two might have been different episodes and 

unconnected reports. Al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s answer to the question of his  madhhab   reads 



very much like one that he would have given to close students or to followers 

rather than to hostile accusers. Al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯ is known to have been very careful 



about what he conveyed to whom. 

91

  His blunt answer would certainly make him 



vulnerable to the accusation of being too rationalist even to follow al-Sha¯fi   ¶ı¯. 

Putting himself in such a position was unnecessary, as the question—if put by 

adversaries—simply asks about his formal allegiance in  fi qh.  

 One way to reconcile the discrepancies is to accept the historical accu-

racy of the answer and the name of the questioner. The question was prob-

ably put forth by As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯, just as Dawlatsha¯h reports—but not by 

the conservative Sufi  but rather by the As ¶ad al-Mayhanı¯ who was the Sha¯fi   ¶ite 

theologian sympathetic to al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯. It has already been said that this As ¶ad 



conveyed information on al-Ghaza¯l

ı

¯’s life. We may assume that the Sha¯fi  ¶ite 



As ¶ad al-Mayanı¯ was a follower of al-Ghaza¯l


Download 4.03 Mb.

Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   55




Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling